CONCLUSION.

On the whole I look on WH's conception ^S that Western variations originated in the fancy of individual scribes to be quite akin to Renan's idea that the Gospels themselves originated in like manner from the contribution of individual Christians, whereas my belief is that the Gospels owe their authority not so much to the eminence of their authors as to the fact that they represent forms in which the story of our Lord's life was officially told in the Churches which His Apostles founded. The fact that we have four Gospels shows, when we reflect on it, that in different places the story was not told in exactly the same way, and therefore there is nothing to shock us if we find that even the text of each separate Gospel was not read in exactly the same way in one Church and in another.

The most striking difference is with respect to the conclusion of St. Mark's Gospel. The facts as to its circulation lead to the conclusions that it was not contained in the MS. which earliest reached Alexandria, and which was there regarded as the highest authority; but that it was included in the form, in which from the earliest times that we can trace the history back, the Gospel was read in the Church of Rome; and therefore I should be disposed to call the one the Roman, the other the Alexandrian form.¹ Before the beginning of the fourth century the Roman form had acquired such circulation all over the Christian world that it required the vigilant care of editors anxious for what they conceived to be the purity of the text to get a copy produced which did not contain the concluding verses.² I think that critics will not ultimately acquiesce in Hort's view that this conclusion is a piece of an independent narrative which some one chose to append to St. Mark's Gospel, but will believe that it was from the first composed for the purpose for which it has served, at any rate since the time of Irenaeus, to bring the second Gospel to a more satisfactory termination.

To sum up in conclusion, I have but to repeat my belief that what Westcott and Hort have restored is the text which had the highest authority in Alexandria in the third century, and may have reached that city in the preceding one. It would need but to strike out the double brackets from the so-called non-Western interpolations, and to remove altogether the few passages which WH reluctantly admitted into their pages with marks of doubt, when we should have a pure Alexandrian text. Their success is due to the fact that WH investigated the subject as a merely literary problem; and the careful preservation at Alexandria of a text which had reached that city was but a literary problem.

To illustrate what I mean by the distinction, I recur to an example already given. If the Alexandrian text really presents to us the original text of the first Gospel, it is important, from a literary point of view, to preserve the fact that the author was a person capable of calling two kings of Judah Asaph and Amos instead of Asa and Amon. We must attend to this fact in discussing the questions who this author was, when he lived, and whether or not he was St. Matthew. But the Revised English New Testament, being intended for Church use, though recognizing the faulty reading as that of the Greek, does not admit it into its text, but relegates it to the margin.

Thus I consider that, while Burgon and Miller exaggerated the ecclesiastical aspect of the question, Westcott and Hort do not attach sufficient value to the sanction given to a text by Church use. Burgon and Miller seem to hold that, no matter how long the Church had taken to make up her mind on the matter, the text which has at length been definitely selected gains immunity from criticism, and if it has reigned for a thousand years cannot be departed from without impiety. I hold, on the contrary, that in critical science the rule milium tempus prevails; that it is never too late to reverse a wrong decision; and that what was not recognized by the first age cannot refuse to submit its claims to scrutiny on the plea that it has enjoyed a usurped authority for a thousand years. But though I do not feel myself bound to conform to the use of the later Church, I cannot lightly regard the practice of the Church of the time when it was in immediate contact with men of the generation to which we owe the Gospels.

That WH should employ the Alexandrian " use " as their chief guide to the recovery of the original text may be quite right; but that they should refuse a place on their page to anything that has not that authority is an extreme which makes me glad that the Revised New Testament, which so closely follows their authority, has not superseded the Authorized Version in our churches. For, if it had, the result might be that things would be accounted unfit to be read in the churches of the nineteenth century which were read at Rome in the second century, during the lifetime of men who had seen members of the apostolic company who had visited their city. If the Roman text were different from the Alexandrian, it might be only as the second edition of a book differs from the first. New Testament editors ought not to be infected with the fashionable craze for collecting first editions. A collector is said to have cooled an inexperienced friend's satisfaction with a purchase by the criticism, " You have got the bad edition. It has not got les fantes which are in the good edition."

But it may be said, This is all very well if you could be sure that the Western variations really have as high authority as the first published text; but what do you know with any certainty about their origin? In the first place, I would explain that I do not plead for the public reading of things which rest only on private authority, such as Clement's story of St. John and the robber, or the story of the man working on the Sabbath; nor even of passages which ultimately did obtain Church sanction, if that sanction were given late, as, for example, the section of the woman taken in adultery. And even with regard to the best attested Western variations it may be conceded that their right to rank as Scripture is matter only of probability, not of certainty.

I think I have said already that my chief hesitation in following WH is with respect to points which they and Burgon hold in common. On whatever points these critics differ, the work of both assumes the older doctrine of inspiration, according to which a sharp line of distinction is drawn between inspired Scripture, which is God's word, whereof every particle is infallibly true, and uninspired writings, the work of fallible men, which may be accepted or disbelieved at our discretion. But investigation convinces us that, instead of the light being separated from the darkness by a well-marked line of division, we find the one shading off into the other through a well-illuminated penumbra, as to which we may be in doubt on which side it is to be reckoned. We find this to be the case with regard to the books of Scripture themselves. The evidence that St. Peter wrote the Second Epistle ascribed to him is not as strong as that Paul wrote the Epistle to the Galatians. With regard to the former Epistle, leading Christians in the fourth century differed in opinion, or were doubtful. If therefore we in the nineteenth century use all legitimate means to inform our judgment, we shall not endanger our salvation though in this matter we judge wrongly. How much less right then have we to complain if absolute certainty has not been vouchsafed to us as to whether or not an exceedingly small fraction of the third or fourth Gospel is rightly ascribed to Luke or John!

But, however reasonable it may be to ask for some suspension of judgment, I am well aware that he who makes such a proposal must expect great reluctance to grant it. If the subject is one on which people feel themselves incompetent to form a judgment of their own and need learned guidance, the first condition of their putting confidence in their guide is that he shall put confidence in himself. If he is fully persuaded of his own ability to conduct them aright, they will follow him though he may lead them wrong, but they will not follow one who doubts and hesitates. Both Burgon and Hort have each the confidence necessary to gain adherents. The most I expect for my modest doubts is that they may stir up some better qualified person to the investigations necessary to enable him to speak more decisively.

1) The idea suggested to Mr. Conybeare by a note in an Armenian MS. that the author of the Roman form was the Aristion mentioned by Papias is in itself improbable, while the evidence for it is exceedingly weak.

2) Certainly in the Sinaitic, and probably in the Vatican MS. also, the verses would seem to have been originally copied and struck out on editorial revision.